I don't think Space-X or Tesla rely on government subsidies. Space-X does do business with the government, but that's something else entirely. As far as profit goes, both are fairly new and ambitiously high-tech businesses that are expanding rapidly, and such businesses can be extremely successful without showing a profit for quite a few years.
Right now, I'm living a very comfortable lifestyle, which will continue in retirement. If I were rich, life wouldn't be that different. If I were poor, there's a fair chance I'd be dead or crippled by now due to lack of health care. (The hospital would have taken care of my heart attack, sure, but not rehabilitation, and I've had other health issues since.) I"m going to suggest that comfort and security are important, and being able to achieve those is more important than getting rich (which only a few do in any case).
Saving a million or two by retirement is no longer being rich. It's not a difficult feat for an upper-middle-class household. When I was young, a million dollars was a lot more money, and I read a magazine article dismissing those who merely saved a million dollars as not being real millionaires.
Mom's kids both are looking at extremely comfortable retirements. They aren't rich.
Your cite claims that the IBM-DR negotiations probably failed for "good old boy" reasons, which suggests that Gates' mom's involvement in charity with an IBM exec probably was important.
I suspect you're overstating the amount of implementation-dependent behavior in compilers, although it's been twenty years since I looked into it. Otherwise, I don't see how gcc and clang would be that portable.
However, the idea is not that two compilers spit out binaries that look alike. The idea is that, given a program, two compilers will spit out binaries that act alike. Two compiler binaries that act alike will put out mostly identical code given some source code.
The mapping of source to assembly is certainly not 1-1, as different source code can map to the same assembly, and different compilers will put out different assembly code for the same source. That doesn't mean the compilation process isn't deterministic.
Name some people who went to Federal prison for mishandling classified material without any intent of doing so, please. I haven't found any. Comey said he wouldn't be able to find a prosecutor who'd prosecute for her violations of the law, not that he thought the DoJ would refuse to prosecute. The Attorney General had explicitly left the decision up to Comey, and she would have prosecuted had he recommended it. The statements I read implied no special treatment for Clinton. Some time afterwards, I saw a Republican Congressman arguing that she should be prosecuted, despite there being no precedent for prosecuting what she did. You or I would have faced possible firing and possible loss of clearance for doing what she did.
Your argument style seems to be a mixture of insults and a complete lack of understanding on your part. To the copyright holder, exactly what's the difference between me pirating something and not watching it in the first place? Please focus on answering that. It's the part you're completely disregarding.
As far as the six-year-old thing goes, I believed a lot of dumb things when I was six. Moral codes should not be based on what six-year-olds think.
To treat pollution as a matter of property rights, either we'd need a civil court system costing trillions of dollars, or we'd have to have absolutely no pollution. Neither is practical. Anarchy isn't very practical, either.
You folks really need to look at what things cost. My brothel gets me money by being bought out over and over again, and using the court system to enforce minor issues now handled by regulation would be incredibly expensive.
Right. The designs are not intended to appeal to us geeks. That doesn't mean they aren't great for lots of people. That doesn't mean their success has much to do with fashion either. Apple makes stuff that lots of people, especially the less technical, like to use.
Alternately, Apple did a really good job earlier, and there isn't all that much cool new stuff to add to their phones. That will change, but apparently not this month.
One of the things that made Apple great was Steve Jobs' ability to design something for style and ease of use that was practical for the technology, and ram the vision through intact despite objections.
When you compare Apple prices to the price of a very similar computer, Apple doesn't look that bad. The difference is that Apple doesn't go low-end, and they spend money on the stuff that technogeeks tend to think unimportant. Similarly, Apple software has virtues that we don't really care about, but which lots of people like.
Apple has always been early to remove old hardware features. The jackless iPhones come with Bluetooth listening devices that people seem to think very nice. Eventually, people won't care about the jack (I'm not there yet).
And since you don't see why Apple is successful, it must be due to "marketing". Lots of people prefer Apple software. It's fine if you don't like their software, but it works very well for a lot of people.
What Apple does better than anyone else is make stuff usable. The iPhone didn't really have anything new. However, it was easy to use its capabilities. Same with the iPad. That tends to be ignored here, because a lot of us are computer geeks who can make things work the way we want, but it's very significant.
That's a reason not to move from 7 to X. It isn't a reason for move from 7 to 8. So far, the only thing the phones after my four-year-old 5S have that I want is ApplePay. Eventually, apps will pass my phone by, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyone remember the iPhone 4 external antennas that you could partially short with your finger to get worse reception? I believe that was the same basic mistake: not widely testing it. If you test it near a cell tower, you don't notice some degradation in your service, but not everybody lives and works that close.
If a community doesn't want a brothel, then I can sequentially buy pieces of property, turn them into brothels, and the community will have to follow me around and buy everything I buy at a profit for me, in addition to what I make running what is essentially a mobile brothel. (Also, I'm real dubious about laws about what consenting adults can do with each other in private.)
I would have used another example, that it's like basing pollution laws on the money it would cause to cut down on pollution, instead of the effect on the community.
There are three main families of languages in Europe: the Romance languages, which are derived from Latin, the Germanic, and the Slavic. There are also languages like Hungarian and Finnish that aren't in any of those three. The main Romance languages are French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, and whatever they speak in Romania. The majority of languages in Europe are not Romance languages, such as English, German, Polish, Russian, Greek, and Serbo-Croatian.
Yes, but you could say exactly the same thing about something in the public domain. Horror writers have to compete with Poe and Lovecraft, as well as with their contemporaries.
So, there's a Disney movie I might buy. If, instead, I watch Song of the South or read some Jane Austen, that's a lost sale in some sense. If someone disapproves of getting a copy of Song of the South because of the financial results, they must be furious at Project Gutenberg.
Let's say I was pirating Game of Thrones. I'd watch it. I wouldn't consume it. All copies would remain intact. I haven't deprived the copyright holder of anything, because the copyright holder still has everything the copyright holder had before I pirated it. This has the exact same market and financial affect as me not watching Game of Thrones (except that I might recommend Game of Thrones to others if I pirate it). If I distribute copies, I might reduce the number of copies sold. If I give it bad reviews, I might reduce the number of copies sold. To the copyright holder, there's no effective difference.
Now, say I stole some cheese from the grocery store. The grocer is not in the same situation as if I didn't take the cheese in the first place. I am consuming something in this case, because if I eat the cheese it's gone.
Failure to understand this distinction means you're not worth reading on this subject, because you're proceeding from false premises. Feel free to come up with real ways why piracy is bad.
Heck, mathematicians often run around screaming about formal proof, but the entire field is based on unproven axioms.
All mathematics is ultimately in the form of "if this, then that, because....". The ancient Greeks who got the study rolling didn't realize that, but everybody in the field knows that now. It's impossible to prove anything but a tautology, and unless it's a very interesting tautology it's pointless.
The question is not whether axioms are true, but what consequences they have. By selecting axioms that match up with reality, we can use mathematics to learn more about reality. (This is a very significant feature of the Universe.)
There was a quest to find fundamental bases of axioms, and early last century it looked like there was an excellent one in intuitive set theory, but that failed with the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members. Since then, it's been generally appreciated that axioms are arbitrary by anyone who looks at them.
Read the appropriate Federalist paper (58 or 68, I don't remember). It says that the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent people like Trump from being elected President. That's the best source document I've got for why it was designed, although I've seen convincing arguments that it was to give slave states more say in who became President.
Sure, we should investigate illegal collusion with foreign countries on the part of anyone, provided there's evidence to get an investigation going. Trump, for example, had extensive business dealings with Russia, and people around him have lied about the extent of meetings with Russians, so that's a good place to start.
Sure, investigate Antifa. They've done enough to justify it. This doesn't mean letting up on white supremacists, though, which Trump apparently wants.
Journalism is privileged in this country. I believe in the First Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Space-X or Tesla rely on government subsidies. Space-X does do business with the government, but that's something else entirely. As far as profit goes, both are fairly new and ambitiously high-tech businesses that are expanding rapidly, and such businesses can be extremely successful without showing a profit for quite a few years.
Got support for that? Universal health care looks to me like it would make it easier to advance economically.
Right now, I'm living a very comfortable lifestyle, which will continue in retirement. If I were rich, life wouldn't be that different. If I were poor, there's a fair chance I'd be dead or crippled by now due to lack of health care. (The hospital would have taken care of my heart attack, sure, but not rehabilitation, and I've had other health issues since.) I"m going to suggest that comfort and security are important, and being able to achieve those is more important than getting rich (which only a few do in any case).
Saving a million or two by retirement is no longer being rich. It's not a difficult feat for an upper-middle-class household. When I was young, a million dollars was a lot more money, and I read a magazine article dismissing those who merely saved a million dollars as not being real millionaires.
Mom's kids both are looking at extremely comfortable retirements. They aren't rich.
Your cite claims that the IBM-DR negotiations probably failed for "good old boy" reasons, which suggests that Gates' mom's involvement in charity with an IBM exec probably was important.
I suspect you're overstating the amount of implementation-dependent behavior in compilers, although it's been twenty years since I looked into it. Otherwise, I don't see how gcc and clang would be that portable.
However, the idea is not that two compilers spit out binaries that look alike. The idea is that, given a program, two compilers will spit out binaries that act alike. Two compiler binaries that act alike will put out mostly identical code given some source code.
The mapping of source to assembly is certainly not 1-1, as different source code can map to the same assembly, and different compilers will put out different assembly code for the same source. That doesn't mean the compilation process isn't deterministic.
Name some people who went to Federal prison for mishandling classified material without any intent of doing so, please. I haven't found any. Comey said he wouldn't be able to find a prosecutor who'd prosecute for her violations of the law, not that he thought the DoJ would refuse to prosecute. The Attorney General had explicitly left the decision up to Comey, and she would have prosecuted had he recommended it. The statements I read implied no special treatment for Clinton. Some time afterwards, I saw a Republican Congressman arguing that she should be prosecuted, despite there being no precedent for prosecuting what she did. You or I would have faced possible firing and possible loss of clearance for doing what she did.
Your argument style seems to be a mixture of insults and a complete lack of understanding on your part. To the copyright holder, exactly what's the difference between me pirating something and not watching it in the first place? Please focus on answering that. It's the part you're completely disregarding.
As far as the six-year-old thing goes, I believed a lot of dumb things when I was six. Moral codes should not be based on what six-year-olds think.
To treat pollution as a matter of property rights, either we'd need a civil court system costing trillions of dollars, or we'd have to have absolutely no pollution. Neither is practical. Anarchy isn't very practical, either.
You folks really need to look at what things cost. My brothel gets me money by being bought out over and over again, and using the court system to enforce minor issues now handled by regulation would be incredibly expensive.
Right. The designs are not intended to appeal to us geeks. That doesn't mean they aren't great for lots of people. That doesn't mean their success has much to do with fashion either. Apple makes stuff that lots of people, especially the less technical, like to use.
Alternately, Apple did a really good job earlier, and there isn't all that much cool new stuff to add to their phones. That will change, but apparently not this month.
One of the things that made Apple great was Steve Jobs' ability to design something for style and ease of use that was practical for the technology, and ram the vision through intact despite objections.
When you compare Apple prices to the price of a very similar computer, Apple doesn't look that bad. The difference is that Apple doesn't go low-end, and they spend money on the stuff that technogeeks tend to think unimportant. Similarly, Apple software has virtues that we don't really care about, but which lots of people like.
Apple has always been early to remove old hardware features. The jackless iPhones come with Bluetooth listening devices that people seem to think very nice. Eventually, people won't care about the jack (I'm not there yet).
And since you don't see why Apple is successful, it must be due to "marketing". Lots of people prefer Apple software. It's fine if you don't like their software, but it works very well for a lot of people.
What Apple does better than anyone else is make stuff usable. The iPhone didn't really have anything new. However, it was easy to use its capabilities. Same with the iPad. That tends to be ignored here, because a lot of us are computer geeks who can make things work the way we want, but it's very significant.
That's a reason not to move from 7 to X. It isn't a reason for move from 7 to 8. So far, the only thing the phones after my four-year-old 5S have that I want is ApplePay. Eventually, apps will pass my phone by, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyone remember the iPhone 4 external antennas that you could partially short with your finger to get worse reception? I believe that was the same basic mistake: not widely testing it. If you test it near a cell tower, you don't notice some degradation in your service, but not everybody lives and works that close.
The times I took a black cab in London (which is what this whole thing is about), the cabs were very nice and the drivers were excellent.
If a community doesn't want a brothel, then I can sequentially buy pieces of property, turn them into brothels, and the community will have to follow me around and buy everything I buy at a profit for me, in addition to what I make running what is essentially a mobile brothel. (Also, I'm real dubious about laws about what consenting adults can do with each other in private.)
I would have used another example, that it's like basing pollution laws on the money it would cause to cut down on pollution, instead of the effect on the community.
Thing is, even if I don't deal with Uber, there's still drivers with inadequate licenses and insurance out there, and that can affect me.
There are three main families of languages in Europe: the Romance languages, which are derived from Latin, the Germanic, and the Slavic. There are also languages like Hungarian and Finnish that aren't in any of those three. The main Romance languages are French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, and whatever they speak in Romania. The majority of languages in Europe are not Romance languages, such as English, German, Polish, Russian, Greek, and Serbo-Croatian.
Yes, but you could say exactly the same thing about something in the public domain. Horror writers have to compete with Poe and Lovecraft, as well as with their contemporaries.
So, there's a Disney movie I might buy. If, instead, I watch Song of the South or read some Jane Austen, that's a lost sale in some sense. If someone disapproves of getting a copy of Song of the South because of the financial results, they must be furious at Project Gutenberg.
Let's say I was pirating Game of Thrones. I'd watch it. I wouldn't consume it. All copies would remain intact. I haven't deprived the copyright holder of anything, because the copyright holder still has everything the copyright holder had before I pirated it. This has the exact same market and financial affect as me not watching Game of Thrones (except that I might recommend Game of Thrones to others if I pirate it). If I distribute copies, I might reduce the number of copies sold. If I give it bad reviews, I might reduce the number of copies sold. To the copyright holder, there's no effective difference.
Now, say I stole some cheese from the grocery store. The grocer is not in the same situation as if I didn't take the cheese in the first place. I am consuming something in this case, because if I eat the cheese it's gone.
Failure to understand this distinction means you're not worth reading on this subject, because you're proceeding from false premises. Feel free to come up with real ways why piracy is bad.
Read the appropriate Federalist paper (58 or 68, I don't remember). It says that the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent people like Trump from being elected President. That's the best source document I've got for why it was designed, although I've seen convincing arguments that it was to give slave states more say in who became President.
Sure, we should investigate illegal collusion with foreign countries on the part of anyone, provided there's evidence to get an investigation going. Trump, for example, had extensive business dealings with Russia, and people around him have lied about the extent of meetings with Russians, so that's a good place to start.
Sure, investigate Antifa. They've done enough to justify it. This doesn't mean letting up on white supremacists, though, which Trump apparently wants.
Journalism is privileged in this country. I believe in the First Amendment.